I'm afraid starting more than one Range Server on a single machine isn't good practice. From our estimation the current bottleneck of a Range Server is DFS I/O (assuming the number of DFS slaves is 1:1 to the number of Range Servers). Starting multiple Range Servers doesn't make DFS faster, so probably the performance won't improve.
Donald On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Josh Adams <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Doug Judd <[email protected]> wrote: >> The latest code (commit 2d901102) in the master branch of the hypertable git >> [...] > > Hey Doug, thanks very much for pushing this out so quickly! > > I'm now really interested in running multiple RangeServers on each > machine since memory being limited and it appears like I have some > extra cpu to burn. Does this sound like a reasonable thing to try or > does a single RangeServer per machine generally make best use of n > cpus as built? > > I was thinking of starting out with four RangeServers on a 12G/8cpu > machine with something like a 2G limit per RS (and tuning > hypertable.cfg wherever it assumes configs should be set as per > numcpus.) Happily, it looks like you've prepared for this use case by > including the port in the naming of /hypertable/servers/* so I thought > I'd throw this out there. > > Cheers, > Josh > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hypertable Development" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hypertable-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
